Research and Discuss the US Involvement in the War in Syria (Term Paper Sample)

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
The War in Syria
It has been an ardent debate by the students of international relations dating back to the periods of the late 1970s in the schools of thoughts of neo-realists and the neo-liberal school of thought. The realists believe that foreign relations act entirely by national interest. The real Syrian civil war has taken a toll both on its citizens and the surrounding region as well. The battle has attracted the attention of the US government, threatening targeted military intervention on the incumbent Syrian leader Bashar Assad after the August 2013 chemical attacks. Concepts of the neo-realist school of thought can be applied to both events leading to the Syrian war intervention and other world conflicts the US has intervened in. Though it can be argued that neo-realism is not an accurate explanation of events, it is, however, a compelling choice to another international relation school of thoughts. The thesis of this paper is to argue that the US involvement in Syria is to pursue its agendas and not for international relations.
In August 2012, the American president Barrack Obama warned the Damascus government against the use of chemical weapons on its citizens. This was to happen a year later as the civil war escalated, prompting Washington to propose military strike in Syria, citing humanitarian crisis inflicted by the Assad government (Ismael 119). Many scholars have come up with theories describing the international relations, but it is to be noted that no specific theory can best explain the relationships. The realist perspective, however, best represent the US-Syrian conflict as it allows for a difference between declared intentions and actual objectives. Realists claim that the quest for power, whether as a human nature property or as the results of global structure offers a convincing action on both the Syrian and American governments' action leading to their current situation. The claim of military intervention motivated by humanitarian crises disputes the mandate of the United Nations authorized to take such actions, allows the US to adopt a role of a global protector while advancing its goals (Genest 45).
The history between the US and Syria can be seen as a complicated one. The Middle East, in general, was neglected by the US foreign policy until 1941when President Roosevelt declared the importance of its defense to that of US, this continued to the cold war error (Ismael 116). In November 1970, while the US and Soviets were still entangled in their containment policies, Hafiz Al-Assad overthrew his Ba’ath party government, assuming the post of prime minister and then president. His government was credited with bringing political stability, achieved by widespread arrests, threats and assassination of significant figures (Ziadeh 28). He even resorted to bombing one of his cities; killing about 15, 000, arresting over 100,000 and 17,000 citizens were unaccounted at the time. Human rights organization christened the Syrian state as an authoritarian police state. These questionable domestic tactics leading to human rights violation, coupled with Assad's close relationship to the communist Soviets was of little concern to the US. Of most important was Assad's foreign policy towards the neighboring Middle East nations.
Between 1976 and 1979, the US Congress passed Arms Export Control Act and Export Administration Act, whose aim was to stop foreign aid to those countries supporting international terrorism Syria being one of them. This coupled with the US involvement in the Lebanon 1975 Civil War increased the tensions between the two nations. This was to change during the Gulf war when Syria decided to participate in the UN coalition against Iraq. The US labeled it a moderate state, opening it to economic investments, and increasing the Washington hope of Syria signing a peace deal with Israel, leading to its domination of Middle East (Gasiorowski 289).
In 2000 when Bashar Al-Assad inherited power from his father, his western education and life prompted him to bridge the gap between Syria and the Western society. It became complicated as Syria still supported the Lebanese Hezbollah causing more tension with the US. The tensions were further heightened when after the Iraq war; the US government accused Syria of hiding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which started the war in the first place. This led to the passage of 2003, the Syrian Accountability Act allowing the US president to impose several sanctions against Syria. The 2010 Arab Spring protests spread to Syria in 2011, with Assad pledging reforms when the revolts erupted. The unrest continued with the failed promise, and over 100,000 persons have been reported killed and millions displaced. In August 2013, the UN inspection team confirmed the use of chemical weapons on site, and even though Assad agreed to the Russian-brokered proposal to destroy Syria's chemical weapons, he has denied culpability in the attack.
After the brief history, it is prudent to explore the neo-realism theory and its correlation to the US-Syria relationship. The constricted relationship between the two nations can be attributed to Syria's support of US opponents such any military intervention by the US is seen as its policy to increase its power and influence in the region, according to the Neo-realism principle of hegemony. Considered to be the dominant state worldwide in the military, the US must enforce its military dominance to maintain its hegemony position. By Russia brokering the diplomatic solution in Syria made the US looked weak. With power politics driving the realist theory, and foreign policy a measure of both power and security, threat, therefore, becomes a mode of achieving security. It is also a platform for states to further their interests in the international system. Due to fear, mistrust and insecurity of opposing nations, states justify their increasing armament to ensure their stability and protection. (Carlin 21).
Syria is not a military match, and therefore not a threat to the US. Russia, a loyal ally of the Assad government, has continued its weapon supply to the nation and consistently defending the regime from condemnation by the UN Security Council. After the alleged Assad troop's use of chemical weapons, the US who were at first reluctant to provide arms to the Syrian rebels due to their extremist tendencies finally did so. With the US strict policies on extremist policies, it begs to question the justification of the military support. Furthermore, Syria itself offers no viable threat to the US. ( Ziadeh 29).
Neo-realists hold the opinion that international conflicts can be avoided by the division of power among multiple nations or coalitions. The military force of the US goes unchallenged presently, a situation which if stays; according to the realists, belief would leave the world in a possible conflict and instability state (Genest, 42). The fact that the American government did not undertake a military action when their "Red Line" was crossed indicates more factors are attracting it to the conflict. With a majority of American citizens being opposed to any military action in Syria as opinions polls suggest, even after the chemicals attacks took place, pursuing military action in such a scenario could have caused Washington a backlash from its populace and the i...